United States v. Oneal, 961 F.3d 68

Background

Oneal pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy for multiple cellphone-store robberies in 2015; he and coconspirators gestured as if armed, pushed employees/customers into back or inventory rooms, and stole merchandise.
The PSR applied two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements: a 3-level "dangerous weapon" enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(E)) based on Oneal using his hand to simulate a firearm, and a 2-level "physical restraint" enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(4)(B)) based on directing victims into back/inventory rooms.
The government’s plea estimate omitted those enhancements but later told the probation department the PSR calculation was "correct" while simultaneously recommending a sentence based on the lower plea-estimate offense level.
The district court adopted both enhancements (total offense level 27), reduced Oneal’s criminal-history category, varied downward, and sentenced him to 84 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held the PSR’s sparse factual assertions were insufficient to support either enhancement and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing unless the district court makes additional findings consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant's hand can qualify as an "object" making the hand a "dangerous weapon" under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(E)	Oneal: gestures indicating a weapon elsewhere (e.g., hand near waistband) do not make the hand itself an object; PSR lacks facts showing the hand was concealed or used to appear as a weapon	Government/District Ct: keeping a hand near the waistband and gesturing simulated a firearm and justified the enhancement	Court: Reversed. Enhancement requires use of an object so that the object itself appears to be a dangerous weapon (e.g., a concealed hand creating a gun-like appearance); PSR facts here were too general to support it.
Whether directing victims into another room constitutes being "physically restrained" under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(4)(B)	Oneal: moving victims to back/inventory rooms is typical robbery conduct and PSR does not show confinement, locking, or other physical prevention of movement	Government/District Ct: herding victims into back rooms at apparent gunpoint physically restrained them and facilitated the robbery	Court: Reversed. Forced movement alone (even into another room) is insufficient; qualifying physical restraint requires forcible confinement or comparable restraint that facilitates the offense; PSR lacked such facts.
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by saying the PSR enhancements were "correct"	Oneal: government’s statement conceded applicability of enhancements and breached the plea estimate, unfairly increasing exposure	Government: it characterized the PSR as "correct" but expressly stood by the lower plea estimate and did not advocate applying the enhancements	Court: No plain error. Government’s single-sentence concurrence without advocacy did not breach the plea agreement under the circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Anglin, 169 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1999) (limits on applying physical-restraint enhancement; brandishing gun + "get down" alone insufficient)
United States v. Paul, 904 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2018) (direction to move to a place typical of robberies does not trigger physical-restraint enhancement)
United States v. Rosario, 7 F.3d 319 (2d Cir. 1993) (distinguishing restraint from mere force; enhancement requires forcible restraint)
United States v. Mingo, 340 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (plain-language interpretation of Guidelines controls)
United States v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (PSR adoption insufficient when PSR lacks adequate factual detail)
United States v. Hoffa, 587 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 2009) (hand concealed to create appearance of a gun can qualify as object for enhancement)
United States v. Stitman, 472 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2007) (concealed hand/pocket bulge can create reasonable belief defendant is armed)
United States v. Souther, 221 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2000) (concealed hand may serve as object appearing to be a dangerous weapon)
United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2000) (older approach treating simulated possession as sufficient; Court here distinguishes post-amendment Guideline language)
United States v. Wilson, 920 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2019) (Pimentel plea-estimates are nonbinding; government deviation not automatically a breach)
United States v. Lawlor, 168 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1999) (government concurrence with PSR can, in some circumstances, constitute breach)
United States v. Riera, 298 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (government response to court inquiry did not breach plea when it disavowed advocacy)
Marcus v. United States, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain-error standard guidance)